An Independent Public RecordWednesday, June 17, 2026

MACEOPEDIA

The Public Record

← Back to Dispatches

Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Nancy Mace's Gag Order Violations · 2026 Governor Campaign · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index

Dispatch

While the gag order holds, Mace proposes Aggravated Voyeurism Act and ties it to her 'personal experiences' as a victim

On January 3, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect, Rep. Nancy Mace announced the Aggravated Voyeurism Act at the South Carolina statehouse and publicly tied it to her 'personal experiences' as a self-described victim of voyeurism. The announcement was not cited in the contempt motion filed January 12, 2026; it is presented here as a public statement made during the order's effective period. Mace disputes the validity and scope of the gag order.

Mace at the South Carolina statehouse announcing the Aggravated Voyeurism Act, January 3, 2026
Photo: ABC News 4 / WCIV. Source

On November 26, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, entered a sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The order barred all parties and their agents and attorneys from "Making or publishing any comment about any aspect of this case … via oral, written, social media, text or any other forms of communication" and from commenting about "any party or attorney to this case or anyone connected to this case."

The order remained in effect as of January 3, 2026.

The January 3 announcement

On January 3, 2026, Mace appeared at the South Carolina statehouse to announce the Aggravated Voyeurism Act, a state-level proposal that would substantially stiffen penalties for recording sexual-assault victims without consent. Her press release, issued through her official website, framed the legislation in terms of her own experiences as a victim.

According to ABC News 4 / WCIV coverage of the event, Mace stated:

"Imagine surviving a sexual assault, only to learn someone filmed it. Under current law, the person who created a permanent record of your assault could walk away with a fine less than a speeding ticket. South Carolina law is sometimes absurd."

And:

"Recording this kind of crime isn't a footnote. It's an awful and invasive crime that does serious long-term damage to its victims. A recording can be distributed, held over a victim's head for years, used for extortion, or live on the internet forever. South Carolina law should treat it like the serious violation of someone's life, that it is."

The proposal, as reported by ABC News 4, would increase first-offense fines from $500 to $5,000, mandate jail time, and establish aggravated voyeurism as a felony carrying five to ten years imprisonment when victims are minors, incapacitated, or experiencing another crime at the time of the recording, or when the offender holds a position of authority. It would also require restitution for therapy and damages, with sentences running consecutively rather than concurrently.

Context: overlapping subject matter

The underlying litigation in Berg v. Bryant centers in part on allegations, disputed by Mace, involving recordings, privacy violations, and related claims that Mace has publicly characterized in terms of her own victimization. At the same time as announcing the Aggravated Voyeurism Act, Mace publicly described herself as a victim of the type of conduct the bill targets.

The gag order's prohibition on commenting "about any aspect of this case … or anyone connected to this case" encompasses parties and persons involved in the Berg v. Bryant matter. Whether and to what degree the January 3 announcement touched on matters within the order's scope is a contested legal question. This dispatch does not assert that the announcement violated the gag order. It is presented as a public statement made during the order's effective period, bearing factual overlap with the subject matter of the underlying case.

The January 3 announcement was not cited or attached as an exhibit in the contempt motion filed January 12, 2026, and was not part of the court's consideration in that proceeding.

Mace's position

Mace has disputed the validity and enforceability of the gag order. In a January 21, 2026 letter to Judge Hocker, filed on the state docket and attached to her federal removal filings, she wrote that the order is "overly broad, unconstitutional, and unenforceable, particularly as applied to a sitting member of the U.S. Congress and leading candidate for Governor of South Carolina." She simultaneously moved the contempt proceeding to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and declared: "I will not be SILENCED." The full letter is reproduced in the dispatch "Kangaroo Court … I will not be SILENCED".

The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions, and a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. All allegations in the case remain unproven and contested. Mace denies Bryant's claims and contests the validity of the gag order; Bryant and Bowman deny Mace's allegations; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. The gag order's constitutionality is itself disputed and has not been ruled upon. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.

Sources & related coverage:

While the gag order holds, Mace proposes Aggravated Voyeurism Act and ties it to her 'personal experiences' as a victim: image 1